123Jump.com leaps to a faulty conclusion: <... Loral, with a 38% stake in the satellite phone venture, has sunk more than $1 billion into the project, but it recently claimed it would not provide any fresh funding. Globalstar should reach "commercial viability" without Loral's support, according to chairman of both companies, Bernard Schwartz. He expressed a belief that Globalstar has the necessary cash to fund operations until May 2001 and need not look for bankruptcy protection.
Suprisingly[sic] last week, Loral purchased a $500 million Globalstar credit facility, borrowed earlier by the satellite telephone provider. This move preempts potential Globalstar worries about banks calling in satellites as collateral>
Dear Reader,
The people at Wall Street Journal and the journalists at 123jumptothewrongconclusion.com should learn to read. The Wall Street Journal correctly reported Bernard Schwartz' quote about Loral's future Globalstar investments being predicated on their normal investment criteria and Globalstar could not expect any favoured treatment.
WSJ and 123Jump and most other people couldn't understand that.
Maybe people have got a half-sentence attention span so they 'got' the first half of Bernard's comment, which was that Loral wouldn't fund any more of Globalstar, but couldn't hold the idea in their head until they got through the second half, which was a conditional statement such as 'unless it meets our normal investment criteria'.
He was obviously trying to assure the Loral investors that their company would NOT be sacrificed in a hopeless attempt to save Globalstar.
Although Loral subsequently tried explaining this complex concept, the journalists and many investors just don't seem to 'get it'. It is understandable if Bernard thinks investors and reporters are morons. Maybe Ritalin sales need to be extended into the adult population so people can make it all the way through a sentence before forming a conclusion.
I wonder if anyone reading this has any idea what I mean? Hello! Anybody home? Have you made it all the way to here? You must be in the 99th percentile of attention span [and speed reading]. Do you 'get it'? Unlike Jon, I will not answer these questions for you.
Now, what the hell does 123Doesn'tGetIt.com mean by 'surprisingly'? Can they not read what they just wrote? Bernard said there is no expectation of bankruptcy before May and that Loral shouldn't need to support Globalstar to commercial viability. Here is the quote again, for ease of reference, <He expressed a belief that Globalstar has the necessary cash to fund operations until May 2001 and need not look for bankruptcy protection.>
The very next words they wrote were <surprisingly last week, Loral purchased a $500 million Globalstar credit facility...> which would prevent banks or other creditors calling the debt and demanding bankruptcy proceedings.
Why the hell is it 'surprising'? If Loral doesn't think bankruptcy is at all essential, at least until May, why should they leave the possibility of bankruptcy to the vagaries of some capricious and ignorant creditors?
Okay, everyone will now have totally lost the plot so I am leaving too.
Goodbye!
Maurice
PS: Whether you believe Bernard or not in regard to the possibility of bankruptcy and the value of the Globalstar investment to Loral is irrelevant to the argument I'm making. I am just saying that ... well, those who 'get it' know what I mean...
No wonder almost nobody can make CDMA work....imagine how long people need to concentrate to get through a CDMA software programme to ensure a logical flow.
For non-English speakers...
Vagaries: dictionary.com
Capricious: dictionary.com
Predicated: dictionary.com
Ritalin: dictionary.com
Criteria: dictionary.com
Logical: dictionary.com |
